Aesthetic

Appreciation
A chained statue of a
cat, or a statue of a
chained cat?
Aesthetic Enjoyment
 Philosophers who
ponder how and why
aesthetic objects have
such a hold on us, and
what value they serve in
our lives, are known as
Aestheticians.
An object of aesthetic
appreciation is defined
as something that
prompts valuable
aesthetic emotions in
us.
 Aestheticians typically
divide objects of
aesthetic appreciation
into art objects, which
are human-made, and
objects of natural beauty.
Does the value of the art
come from what’s put
into the art object, by the
person who created it?
Or does its value depend
on the experience that it
triggers in the audience?
 “An artist creates as a
way of communicating
feelings to other people–
oftentimes, feelings that
can’t be expressed in
mere words.”
-Leo Tolstoy
 Some thinkers argue that
the intention of the artist is
really important – that the
artist must want to evoke
some valuable emotion in
the audience, for their work
to be considered art.
Some argue that what
makes something art
is the aesthetic
emotion that it brings
out in the audience.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
believes in the
concept of de-
definition.
Can we judge one of them to be a better
artwork than another? And if we can, on
what basis?
Unlike Ethics, where many
people think there are
absolute right and wrong
answers– like, killing is
wrong, and helping people
is good– many people
think that beauty is simply
in the eye of the beholder.
If you really think that
beauty is in the eye of
the beholder, then no
one can be wrong
about their aesthetic
beliefs.
 David Hume argued,
when we think about art,
we should take care not
to confuse the question,
“Do I like it?” with the
question, “Is it good?”
As long as you’re being
honest, you can’t be
wrong about whether or
not you like something,
because that’s totally
subjective.
Just as we have a sense
of smell and sight and
hearing, we also have a
sense of aesthetic taste–
an ability to detect and
evaluate the aesthetic
properties of an object.
 Some people
naturally have a
refined sense of
aesthetic taste.
 If you don’t happen
to have natural “good
taste,” it can still be
learned over time.
ART: What good is
it?
•Sadist – you want to
push the button
•Moralist – the exhibit
makes you feel upset
•Voyeur – you enjoy
watching the reactions
of others
What does art tell us
about ourselves?
What does art do to
us?
What purpose does
art serve in our
lives?
Plato was so concerned about
the dangers of art that he
actually advocated for its
widespread censorship, and
while you might disagree with
him on that, you can probably
at least agree with his
sentiment that art is powerful.
 R. G. Collingwood
acknowledged that the
best art, the art that
really matters, is the stuff
that changes the way we
interact with the world.
 Amusement art helps
the audience escape
from reality, diving into
a no-stake fictional
world after a stressful
day.
Magic art is the stuff
that helps the
audience learn how
better to interact with
this world’s reality.
 Beecher Stowe’s story, Uncle
Tom’s Cabin, helped change our
national mindset about slavery,
by making white readers see
African-americans as human
beings with whom they had a lot
in common, rather than as a
nameless other who should be
thought of as property.
 Aristotle believed that
our bodies need to
experience a full range
of emotions in order to
stay in balance.
 If we haven’t been
sad in a while, or had
a good adrenaline
rush, we can start to
crave those feelings.
The Problem of
Tragedy
 A scary movie or a
tearjerker can allow us to
express strong negative
emotions in a safe context,
and the emotional purge
that comes with the
experience feels really
really good.
Why is art so good in
making us feel?
 These questions fall
under another problem
that art poses for us –
one that aestheticians
call the Paradox of
Fiction.
Kendall Walton argues that
we experience “quasi-
emotions,” basically
emotion-like responses
that can be triggered by
fiction, but don’t exist or
function on the level of true
emotions.
 Noel Carroll defends that our
emotions don’t have to
correspond to external reality, in
order for the emotions
themselves to be real. So we can
feel just as strongly for the loves
and losses of our favourite
characters as we can for the
plights of our friends and family.
In the idea of Autonomism,
Evaristti did nothing wrong
in outing goldfish in a
situation where they were
likely to be pulverized,
because he was doing it in
the name of artistic
expression.
 We often give artists credit
for amazing works of art
that inspire positive change
in the world, like Sense8,
but if a work inspires bad
actions or bad attitudes, is
the artist to blame for that
too?
 How does Art
change our lives?